Month: September 2012

“This is a significant study that documents serious wildlife and public health issues associated with 125 million outdoor cats in the United States,” explained the American Bird Conservancy’s vice president for conservation advocacy, Darin Schroeder, in a September 18 press release. [1] Schroeder was referring to a paper (“a review of the various diseases of free-roaming cats and the public health implications associated with the cat populations,” [2] as the authors themselves describe it, not a study) published online in July by the journal Zoonoses Public Health (and to be included in an upcoming print edition).

“The information in this review,” explain Rick Gerhold and David Jessup, the paper’s authors, “highlights the serious public health diseases associated with free-roaming cats and underscores the need for increased public health attention directed towards free-roaming cats.” [2]

I’ll save my critique of “Zoonotic Diseases Associated with Free-Roaming Cats” for next time. And let’s set aside for the moment those alleged wildlife impacts, and ABC’s dubious estimate of the number of outdoor cats in this country. What about ABC’s apparent concern for those “serious public health diseases”? Read more

Is it possible I’ve been banned from posting comments on the Mother Jones website—the online home of “smart, fearless journalism”? It certainly looks that way.

Despite several attempts throughout the day Wednesday, my response to senior editor Kiera Butler’s “Kitties, Rabies, the Plague, and You” has yet to appear in the comments. Meanwhile, the conversation continues. Initially, I attributed my virtual absence to a technical problem. After repeated attempts (using two or three different applications to log on), however, I think I have to conclude that my comment is simply not being approved. And will not be approved.

I can’t imagine my response violates MoJo’s comment policy, especially after reading some of the others that have been posted. Could it be the magazine didn’t like being the recipient of the 2011 Trap Liner Award in recognition of its “tragic failure of journalistic integrity while fueling—intentionally or not—the witch-hunt against feral cats”? (This, of course, was in “honor” of Butler’s “Faster, Pussycat! Kill! Kill!,” which was later renamed—perhaps in response to some 1,645 comments, including mine—“Are Cats Bad for the Environment?”)

Did somebody at the magazine even notice? Who knows. Perhaps this really is just a tech issue. In any case, here’s my comment:

Given Butler’s previous contribution to the “never-ending war between cat people and bird people,” I’m not surprised she once again swallowed the American Bird Conservancy’s story in one gulp. It’s a shame—the same week Mother Jonesmade national news with its good old-fashioned hard-hitting journalism, Butler’s reprinting sensationalist press releases.

Had she done even a little bit of research, she would realize that ABC’s claims are just the same old misrepresentations and scaremongering. Take rabies, for example. In 2008, there were 294 cases reported in cats, compared to 75 cases in dogs. But let’s put that into context (using the very same report of CDC data that ABC used): 93 percent of cases were in wildlife; cats made up just 4.3 percent of rabies cases overall.

And, as the report makes clear, reports of rabies cases—such as those typically provided by the CDC—are not an accurate measure of overall infection rates. “Further, because of differences in protocols and submission rates among species and states, comparison of percentages of animals with positive results between species or states is inappropriate.” [1] Unfortunately, such comparisons are commonplace among TNR opponents eager to exaggerate the risk of rabies.

Actually, you’ve got a much better chance of being killed by lightning—not just struck, but killed by lightning. Data collected by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration indicate that between 1959 and 2011, 3,947 people in the U.S. were killed by lightning.

That’s roughly 75 deaths annually. [2] Due to lightning strikes.

And Butler overlooks the obvious (again): What ABC is proposing is a ban on TNR—which means tens of millions of unsterilized and unvaccinated cats. How exactly is that supposed to benefit wildlife and public health? It’s an obvious question to ask, but one that apparently never occurred to Butler.

Next time I get one of Mother Jones’ e-mail pleas for donations, I think I’ll forward it to Darin Schroeder at ABC. They should at least have to pay their stooges.

So, did I go too far?

Literature Cited
1. Blanton, J.D., et al., “Rabies surveillance in the United States during 2008.”Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association. 2009. 235(6): p. 676–689. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19751163

Just two more days to take advantage of the early-bird registration rate of $275!

And Vox Felina readers can save an additional $25 by entering the discount code “Wolf.” Simply visit the conference website, and click on “Register Now.” (When asked for payment information, be sure to use your discount code.)

Some unsettling news coming out of the 52nd annual Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy (ICAAC) meeting on Tuesday: a recently-discovered drug-resistant “superbug” has been found in a domestic cat—the first instance of the infection in a pet. Few details are available at this time, including the location of the cat and people involved. It’s also not clear, according to the story reported by Maryn McKenna for Wired Science Blogs, “whether the cat passed NDM-1 on to its family or, conversely, whether the family were responsible for giving the bug to their pet.”

Dubbed the “Indian Superbug” (the acronym NDM-1 is derived from New Delhi metallo-beta-lactamase) because of its ties to Southeast Asia, explains McKenna, NDM-1 is “actually a gene which encodes an enzyme which confers resistance to almost all known antibiotics.”

“The NDM-1 story has been long and contentious… but from the first, two things have been clear. However the political battles fall out, medicine views the emergence of this gene as a catastrophe, because it edges organisms to the brink of being completely non-responsive to antibiotics, as untreatable as if the infections were contracted before the antibiotic era began. And because the gene resides in organisms that happily live in the gut without causing symptoms, NDM-1 has been a hidden catastrophe, crossing borders and entering hospitals without ever being detected.” [1]

It’s far too soon to predict how significant a “catastrophe” NDM-1 might be for pets, their guardians, and caregivers remains to be seen. It’s not difficult to imagine, however, that NDM-1 will soon become—despite, or perhaps because of, how little is currently known about it—one more “concern” to be exploited by TNR opponents more interested in scaremongering than in public health.

A petition has been started (by a Vox Felina reader, I’m pleased to report!) demanding that ABC News revisit the free-roaming cat issue with a little more journalistic rigor, as a follow-up to their one-sided “Kitty Cam Killers” segment on 20/20 Friday evening.

In less than 48 hours, the petition has received nearly 500 signatures and several comments. If you aren’t among those who have already signed, I encourage you to do so. If you have, please help spread the word by e-mailing to others, and sharing via social media.

I don’t know how much influence we’ll have with ABC News—but we know darn well what to expect if we do nothing.

With just six minutes and 34 seconds to play, I don’t imagine readers got very far with their bingo cards during Friday night’s episode of 20/20 (“The Camera Never Lies: Kitty Cam Killers”). (My apologies for not including Killing Spree—I should have seen that one coming.) It was clear, though, from the footage of George Fenwick’s interview, that things could have played out very differently—the president of the American Bird Conservancy had his talking points down. Read more

Earlier this week, the American Bird Conservancy announced to eNewsletter subscribers that ABC president George Fenwick will be appearing on ABC News’ 20/20 tonight “in a segment about domestic cat predation on birds and other wildlife.”

“The program was prompted by an August American Bird Conservancy news release on a University of Georgia and National Geographic study of house cats that were allowed to roam outdoors. The activities of the cats were recorded using small video cameras attached to the cats’ collars, leading to some startling results. The issue has recently been covered by almost 100 newspapers nationwide as well as by CNN, CBS and USA Today. Members of that study team will also appear on Friday’s program.”

As I pointed out the day that news release was issued, it was an attempt at persuasion not through truth and credibility, but through blunt force—through nothing more than amplification and repetition.

I suspect Fenwick’s appearance on 20/20 will be no different. He and his colleagues at ABC have been lying about the impacts of free-roaming cats for at least 15 years now; I don’t imagine him rediscovering his integrity just when he’s got a television audience eager to hear all about, as 20/20 suggests in its segment title, the “Cutest Serial Killer You’ll Ever Meet.”

After all, some of the people tuning in might actually believe Fenwick. Especially if, as is typical of the mainstream media, the 20/20 team takes his indefensible claims at face value—never bothering with even the most obvious follow-up questions.

I am curious, though, to see if Kerrie Anne Loyd is among study team members to be interviewed. And, more to the point, which Kerrie Anne Loyd—the one who told CBS Atlanta, “Cats aren’t as bad as biologists thought”? That would be rather awkward, wouldn’t it?

In any case, Vox Felina readers will be prepared, bingo cards in hand. Unlike the original, however, this set of cards was designed to make winning virtually impossible. Look carefully at the cards and you’ll see that some have a space marked Five Birds, for example. Not likely Fenwick’s going to bring up the fact that only five birds were killed over the course of Loyd’s study (in which 55 cats contributed 2,000 hours of video). Or that they were, as seems to be the case, Common Species.

You get the idea. The downloadable PDF includes four bingo cards and 120 chips.

Whether you actually play along or not, don’t forget to leave a comment on the 20/20 website letting them know what you thought of the show.

Complaining of the impacts of free-roaming cats on wildlife and the environment, along with a range of public health threats, dozens of veterinarians in Hillsborough County, Florida, have banded together to fight TNR. Evidence suggests, however, that their real concern has nothing to do with the community, native wildlife, or, indeed, with cats. What the Hillsborough Animal Health Foundation is most interested in protecting, it seems, is the business interests of its members.

In Part 5 of this five-part series, I discuss the apparent motives for HAHF’s recent campaign against TNR.

“All of the current issues have arisen from the No Kill movement that attempted to incorporate some radical changes to our county shelter without following the normal governmental process,” explained Don Thompson, executive director of HAHF, in a recent e-mail.

“A big part of the 11-point plan (point 1) is county-endorsed and -funded TNR—and initially, that was going to happen without public input. We objected, and the process is now being properly engaged… We are not in favor of county funded or supported TNR, for all the reasons listed on our page.”

Thompson is referring to a series of events following Nathan Winograd’s February visit to Tampa, including the establishment of a task force, a move Ian Hallett, director of Hillsborough County Animal Services, describes in an August 7th memo to “Animal Advisory Committee Members” and “Registered Voters of Hillsborough County”: Read more

Complaining of the impacts of free-roaming cats on wildlife and the environment, along with a range of public health threats, dozens of veterinarians in Hillsborough County, Florida, have banded together to fight TNR. Evidence suggests, however, that their real concern has nothing to do with the community, native wildlife, or, indeed, with cats. What the Hillsborough Animal Health Foundation is most interested in protecting, it seems, is the business interests of its members.

In Part 4 of this five-part series, I look at Hillsborough County Animal Services as the agency struggles to move from a 35 percent live-release rate to “no-kill” status—a task made all the more difficult by HAHF’s campaign against TNR.

As I like to tell anybody who will listen, there’s no evidence whatsoever that we’re going to kill our way out of the “feral cat problem.” While it may be impossible to prove a negative, Hillsborough County, Florida, does make for a compelling case study.

A Grim Past
“Even though it is Florida’s fourth-largest county,” explains Francis Hamilton, Associate Professor of Management at Eckerd College, in his 2010 paper describing “the development and ongoing process of a social change effort and collaboration” in Hillsborough County, “it has euthanized more animals than any other county in the state.”

“From 1996 to 2008, Hillsborough County Animal Services (HCAS), the county’s public shelter, euthanized about 82 percent (over 306,000) of its animal intake. In calendar year 2005, 73 percent of dogs entering the shelter were euthanized, as were 92 percent of cats.” [1]

In February 2007, Hillsborough County became one of four communities in the country targeted that year by the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals as part of its Mission: Orange initiative. A team of outside consultants was deployed, tasked with “report[ing] on current programs” and “recommend[ing] areas ripe for change which could increase adoptions, while reducing shelter intake and euthanasia.” ASPCA committed $200,000 “to be invested in the area’s animal welfare community for each of the next three years.” [2] Read more